Is this list compiled by hand? If yes, wouldn't it be nice to have a bot doing it? --Mkill 11:33, 11 June 2007 (MDT)

The biggest obstacle with that approach would be with feat chains. It would have to look at the prereqs, see if the feat is part of the list-to-be-compiled, then list it under that feat with an indentation. (e.g. note the how the From The Jaws Of Defeat feat is displayed in the list.) —Sledged (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2007 (MDT)

This can be helped with an annotation to guide the bot, something like

<!-- Chain: Power Attack -->

to tell the bot to sort the feat under Power Attack. --Mkill 12:35, 11 June 2007 (MDT)

What about doing this with DPLCU? — Blue Dragon (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2007 (MDT)

It would need to be tweaked a bit, but it could work. Indentation would have to be limited to keep it from getting out of hand with the really deep chains. There's also the issue of feats that are a part of multiple chains. Do we want the feat listed once for every chain or just one? —Sledged (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2007 (MDT)

I would limit it to one chain. With feats like Whirlwind Attack, you just have to decide whether it's part of the Dodge or the Combat Expertise Chain. --Mkill 21:38, 14 June 2007 (MDT)

I would actually say have them in more than 1 chain... Should this be put to the vote? --Green Dragon 11:28, 15 June 2007 (MDT)

Maybe two chains works too. But not more. --Mkill 12:28, 15 June 2007 (MDT)

I'm of the mind that it should be uniform. If a feat in question is to be listed in more than one chain, it should be listed under all the chains to which it belongs. —Sledged (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2007 (MDT)

Now that I've pondered it a bit, the annotation (or whatever mechanic is used to mark it as part of a chain) shouldn't just list the base feats of the chain. It should just specify all its feat prereqs.

Suppose I have the feat chain:

A-One [Vile]

B-Two [Monstrous]

C-Three [Monstrous]

And the last feat has the previous two for prereqs. If the C-Three page only specifies that it's part of the A-One chain, then the bot or the DLPCU won't know that the B-Two is a prereq for the C-Three, and the page containing monstrous feats will show:

B-Two [Monstrous]

C-Three [Monstrous]

When it should be displaying:

B-Two [Monstrous]

C-Three [Monstrous]

There's no guarantee that the base feat will displayed on the same page as all of its subsequent feats. —Sledged (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2007 (MDT)

This page is a disaster right now as Green Dragon noted. Should we just revert it for the meantime? --Aarnott 10:37, 23 July 2008 (MDT)

I feel that we should. Although many feats will be missing, it will be more useable. And the "missing" feats will be found once we update this page to Aarnott's new method. --Green Dragon 17:38, 24 July 2008 (MDT)

It has been my goal to make the feats section semantically powered. Semantic Media Wiki caches its generated lists, which means that things load faster after the first load. This page takes a long time with dpl. --Aarnott 20:52, 24 July 2008 (MDT)

Been doing a bit of Feat work. And if you are going to just do a normal structure on all the feats, just list them all straight out then I've got a template I've been working on that'll work for that. This will let the bot keep the page updated rather than needing to do everything by hand. It will also go to standardize the lists. (Classses/Spells etc) and how they function. As it stands, I don't think it is economical to do a tree list like the regular SRD, as pulling prereqs seems a bit above me to pull out, not to mention this is specifically in a table format, not a tree format. (not to mention nested tables/asks does not feel like good coding.). Currently I'm using my Sandbox to prototype how this would look, as it seems the feat areas have been significantly neglected. My biggest problem right now is that the NBoF Ratings and benefit boxes would be lost in the feat table since they are not a standard [[3e Blah::<text here>]] and I'm not familiar enough with how the ask function works as of yet. (I've been trying to find info on it but can't seem to find any. Anyhow. please check my Sandbox and get back to me on ideas. -- Sleaker 18:11, 26 January 2009 (MST)

After finally finding the Extension Manual for the #ask function and reading through a bit of it. I think it would be quite easy to remedy the NBoF and benefits sections. Since they are already contained in template, could we just turn them into sub-categories like the 3e Summary and 3e Prerequisites? this seems like a simple fix which would allow me to finish up the table quite painlessly, and all the information contained in the current table would still be intact. -- Sleaker 18:35, 26 January 2009 (MST)

Aarnott got it for you. An example can be found on DnD Metapsionic Feats. Also, the feat trees work perfectly when only the top-tier feat is listed as the prereq feat. And the second used prereq area is used only if the feat works in two feat trees. For example 3.5e Aerial Feats. Also, do you think you could come up with a bot to move all the feats to "(3.5e Feat)" and not "(DnD Feat)"? --Green Dragon 10:38, 13 March 2009 (MDT)

Okay cool, found the NBoF Property. The problem I see currently, is that all of the 3.5e feats would have to be re-written again to include the NBOF rating tags as they currently don't have them. -- Sleaker 16:15, 13 March 2009 (MDT)